3 ms·

By launder the commons through linear algebra I mean train foundation models with sufficient capacity to memorize the Internet via a degree of access to the cor

By launder the commons through linear algebra I mean train foundation models with sufficient capacity to memorize the Internet via a degree of access to the corpus in which the scale renders any notion of competition absurd, most of which is explicitly or implicitly owned by someone or in the public domain, and then assert copyright over the model weights (slightly compressed crawl), openly and flagrantly profiteer on the back thereof, and send Open Philanthropy to go round up a kleptocratic consensus in Washington. Numerous lawsuits are in varying stages of process around this practice, but the one shaping up to be a “test case” is currently looking to be https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-times-open-ai-microsoft-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t... They broke the first rule of Crime Club.

skrebbel 3y ago
> train foundation models with sufficient capacity to memorize the Internet via a degree of access to the corpus in which the scale renders any notion of competition absurd, most of which is explicitly or implicitly owned by someone or in the public domain, and then You’re just trolling me now right
- benreesman 3y ago
  There are dozens of high-profile lawsuits taking place. a16z is in the press taking positions on it (with at least some dissent). @pmarca is on the record saying that it will destroy AI if the USPTO steps the wrong way. Moskovitz is spending easily tens of millions of dollars buying up K Street. All of this, including the legal filings are trivially searchable. How is it me that’s trolling you? If you disagree on a technical basis from a position of any sophistication, elaborate. If you think this isn’t serious as a heart attack, read the trade press.
  - skrebbel 3y ago
    I'm currently considering various possibilities 1. You're actually trolling. You're writing maximally obtuse prose to poke fun at lefties, which you're actually not. In fact, if @pmarca himself had an HN troll account I'd expect it to look a lot like yours, incl referring to himself as @pmarca. 2. You're capable of writing deeply sophisticated text, with 5 commas per sentence and metaphors for metaphors for what you actually mean, yet you truly, genuinely do not understand the sentence "I do not understand what this means" 3. You're a deeply cynical person, who'd use "I do not understand what this means" as a tactic for undermining the other person's actual argument in a sleazy way, and you think other people would do the same. Either way, I keep saying "I don't understand" and you keep layering on more of the same argument in the same incomprehensible style. Consider that maybe I, really truly, cannot understand what you're writing, and that I'm not the only one. I'm leaning towards 2 - I think you mean well and that you somehow really believe that I disagree with you and need convincing. For what it's worth, I agree with most of the things you wrote that I could understand. I'm a lefty too, I think the bigcos have way too much power.
    - hilbert42 3y ago
      We ought to frame this sequence. ;-)
    - 15457345234 3y ago
      I understood pretty much all of what they wrote and find it hard to understand why you keep accusing them of trolling. It's a bit obscurely worded but the point comes across pretty clearly.
    - benreesman 3y ago
      That’s three times now with the accusations of trolling and the personal attacks and innuendo of being operating under a fake account, and generally the 4chan shit. I’ve all but googled the source material for you. Mute.
      - skrebbel 3y ago
        > That’s three times now with the accusations of trolling Two times, and the second time wasn’t even an accusation. > I’ve all but googled the source material for you. Yeah but.. I’m not asking you to! I’m telling you that I find your words, your sentences, so full of meta-metaphors and commas and cultural references that I can’t parse them anymore. I’m telling you that I’m too stupid to understand you and that others are likely too (and judging by some sister comments, that’s true). I should have assumed positive intent, that’s my bad, and I apologize. But I never asked you to layer on the evidence, I merely asked you to present it in simpler terms. You then ignored that completely, multiple times, and kept arguing with me on the topic at hand. But I don’t even disagree with you!
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  How so? The language is florid. But the commenter makes a valid take on a complex problem. The massive land-grab that is "AI+social media" is something we might better understand through the lens of Native American and Aboriginals. When they're not aware that they even own something, and cannot conceive the harms afoot, it's like taking candy from kids. Oh, wait a minute... they /are/ kids in this case. That said, these comments don't directly address the issue at hand, which is the shameless and continued use of dark pattern UX psychology against minors.

skrebbel 3y ago

> train foundation models with sufficient capacity to memorize the Internet via a degree of access to the corpus in which the scale renders any notion of competition absurd, most of which is explicitly or implicitly owned by someone or in the public domain, and then You’re just trolling me now right

benreesman 3y ago
There are dozens of high-profile lawsuits taking place. a16z is in the press taking positions on it (with at least some dissent). @pmarca is on the record saying that it will destroy AI if the USPTO steps the wrong way. Moskovitz is spending easily tens of millions of dollars buying up K Street. All of this, including the legal filings are trivially searchable. How is it me that’s trolling you? If you disagree on a technical basis from a position of any sophistication, elaborate. If you think this isn’t serious as a heart attack, read the trade press.
- skrebbel 3y ago
  I'm currently considering various possibilities 1. You're actually trolling. You're writing maximally obtuse prose to poke fun at lefties, which you're actually not. In fact, if @pmarca himself had an HN troll account I'd expect it to look a lot like yours, incl referring to himself as @pmarca. 2. You're capable of writing deeply sophisticated text, with 5 commas per sentence and metaphors for metaphors for what you actually mean, yet you truly, genuinely do not understand the sentence "I do not understand what this means" 3. You're a deeply cynical person, who'd use "I do not understand what this means" as a tactic for undermining the other person's actual argument in a sleazy way, and you think other people would do the same. Either way, I keep saying "I don't understand" and you keep layering on more of the same argument in the same incomprehensible style. Consider that maybe I, really truly, cannot understand what you're writing, and that I'm not the only one. I'm leaning towards 2 - I think you mean well and that you somehow really believe that I disagree with you and need convincing. For what it's worth, I agree with most of the things you wrote that I could understand. I'm a lefty too, I think the bigcos have way too much power.
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    We ought to frame this sequence. ;-)
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    I understood pretty much all of what they wrote and find it hard to understand why you keep accusing them of trolling. It's a bit obscurely worded but the point comes across pretty clearly.
  - benreesman 3y ago
    That’s three times now with the accusations of trolling and the personal attacks and innuendo of being operating under a fake account, and generally the 4chan shit. I’ve all but googled the source material for you. Mute.
    - skrebbel 3y ago
      > That’s three times now with the accusations of trolling Two times, and the second time wasn’t even an accusation. > I’ve all but googled the source material for you. Yeah but.. I’m not asking you to! I’m telling you that I find your words, your sentences, so full of meta-metaphors and commas and cultural references that I can’t parse them anymore. I’m telling you that I’m too stupid to understand you and that others are likely too (and judging by some sister comments, that’s true). I should have assumed positive intent, that’s my bad, and I apologize. But I never asked you to layer on the evidence, I merely asked you to present it in simpler terms. You then ignored that completely, multiple times, and kept arguing with me on the topic at hand. But I don’t even disagree with you!
nonrandomstring 3y ago
How so? The language is florid. But the commenter makes a valid take on a complex problem. The massive land-grab that is "AI+social media" is something we might better understand through the lens of Native American and Aboriginals. When they're not aware that they even own something, and cannot conceive the harms afoot, it's like taking candy from kids. Oh, wait a minute... they /are/ kids in this case. That said, these comments don't directly address the issue at hand, which is the shameless and continued use of dark pattern UX psychology against minors.